Scotty b. at 2324 disagrees with me. His ‘apples’ describe how women and especially men think in the marketplace today. My ‘oranges’ describe how the male and female natures are born differently. He describes how men expect women to abandon their female nature in order to please men. I describe how women protect their best interest by following their nature and influencing men to honor female values, standards, and expectations.
His comments are bolded, mine are not.
“I disagree with your foundational proposition that women should artificially make men wait as long as possible for sex. I don’t believe that the sex can then ever live up to the time, work, and emotional investment proffered by the man.”
Your proposition is that men invest themselves in a woman for some quantity and quality of sex; it’s their prime motive. First, I don’t believe that to be part of the male nature; lessons learned from other men perhaps, but learned neither from women nor the inborn male nature. Second, women are far better for other than just sex. Their natural qualities are superbly fashioned to provide the worthy care and support of men, a man, and a mate.
Men who can’t admit that—which seems a popular theme in the Manosphere—betray their own gender as possible mates. If they can’t respect women, it’s a sure indication they lack self-respect as good men, which makes them undesirable, undependable, and irresponsible to women who seek to mate with a good man.
My foundational proposition is that a female can never know the honesty and sincerity of a man’s claim to love her until she examines his character closely over time. The most reliable way balances her strong resistance against his insistence to achieve their first sex together (aka hunter-conqueror’s conquest). Only from that balance can she identify and evaluate his true character and what it means and he offers for her future. How well will his character fit in with fulfillment of her hopes and dreams?
Repeated denial of conquest forces him to decide if she’s worth his effort or not. If not, she wins by finding out now rather than later. Or, he decides she’s worth more than just for sex. In which case, he searches for weaknesses and tries ever harder to bed her but with different results. She’s now in the process of being able to win but in her way.
In the try-harder process, he discovers other qualities that he admires (virtues to him). Seeking to marry a virtuous woman, which is an indirect expectation of the male nature, he teaches himself that she has promise to help and support him in his ambitions and endeavors. It’s his final step to finding a good woman and her first step to fulfillment of hopes and dreams.
IOW, his unrewarded chasing her for conquest both invests himself in her and adds value to her as possible mate. OTOH, whenever conquest happens, it ends his search for more virtues, because he has proven himself worthy of her by her yielding her greatest asset. She becomes either a keeper, booty, or dumpee.
Thus, conquest frees him to conquer someone else, unless he found enough virtues that qualify her for mating. If he stays with her, she must be worth it. In which case, she seems to finally win from all those denials for earlier conquest. If they marry, it’s a different ballgame and one that she is quite capable of managing because her nature is superior for doing just that.
“In most cases, this leads to the man harboring tremendous resentment and never again fully trusting her authenticity. He will always wonder if she is once again making him jump through hoops for no legitimate reason.”
Men harbor “tremendous resentment” because a woman chooses not to honor a man’s request for sex? Therefore, she can’t be authentic? You’re saying that denial of sex is not a legitimate course of action for a woman? Men don’t have to honor the values, standards, and expectations of women? Sex reigns as universally available? Women have to follow the man’s game—promiscuity—in order to earn the appreciation of men? Why are women expected only to select which men and not whether to yield or not? What happened to we’re all created equal, the concept that fosters mutual respect between both genders and individuals?
“Further, that strategy [of denying conquest] often leaves the women firmly in control of the relationship – something women think and say they want…. Yet, if you ask a woman to describe the time she was most in Love, that depiction will NEVER include so much as a hint of her being in control of the relationship. Not ever.”
Love and conquest are not equals, the same, or even close as partners within the female motivational force. Denying conquest is defensive. Loving someone is offensive. When they contradict in the female mind, she consciously chooses the one most important to her self-interest. It’s rational thinking, much like men use to make good decisions. Do modern men find it impermissible for modern women?
“Men, as you correctly assert, fall in love primarily by visual stimulation. Thus, they mostly become more in Love in the presence of the One they Love.”
I disagree. In the presence of the one he loves but has not conquered, the male nature keeps his thoughts dedicated to uncovering her weaknesses to expedite getting her into bed. He may proclaim his undying love, but that is not the same as becoming more in love with her. His love grows from his investment of self to please himself by pleasing her. Trying to get her to yield does not please her when her expectations are against it.
“Women primarily fall in Love outside of the presence of the One they Love.”
I disagree again. Discounting infatuation, a woman’s love happens over the course of several encounters. She has to decide several things that involve the prolific use of her curiosity, imagination, and judgment. Is he worthy? Is he responsible? Dependable enough? Are his words reliable, match his actions? What red flags does she have to accept or reject? Is he a potential temp or permanent? How does he fit inside her strategy for fulfilling her hopes and dreams? And ad infinitum.
“It is a scientific fact that women are more attracted to a man whose feelings are unclear. Women’s emotions are anchored and grow deeper while they remain uncertain if he loves and cares for them reciprocally.”
I tend to agree except I doubt the “scientific fact.” His unclear feelings throw up a challenge to her. It fires up her curiosity and imagination, and those are the faculties by which she also falls in love. So, it can happen as you describe.
“Their Love deepens as they discuss their last date with their girlfriends, as they analyze him, and as they strategize how to capture the Love of the One they Want.”
True. What women express verbally they tend to believe accordingly.
“It is women not men who need, and crave, the ‘hunt’ and the process of falling in Love and the thrill of strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.”
You have mixed up the roles. Men and not women are hunter-conquerors, although modern women are habitually disproving it by acting more like men than following their female nature. Yes, women do love the thrill of “strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.” I acknowledge that men hunt and women maneuver.
“In this post, the “superior gender” is a dangerous phrase. ‘Superior’ is neither accurate nor supportive of your ideals. Applied to, and internalized by, either males or females, that adjective has the potential to do great harm. Do you really believe one gender is superior to the other?!?”
I counter with this from article 2213 posted 5/23/2015:
Superior Sex vs. Dominant Sex. On the macro scale of human behavior, we see a superior sex and irresistible force versus a dominant sex and immovable object. However, God designs the genders such that the immovable becomes moveable with irresistible female leveraging of sexual availability. That is, men do whatever women require in order for men to have frequent and convenient access to sex.
On the other hand, the irresistible female force becomes resistible under the influence of masculine strength to get what men want. Women do whatever men require in order for women to enjoy the fruits of manly producing, providing, protecting, and problem solving on behalf of women and children.
It’s a swap meet. Irresistible and immovable both yield voluntarily to reciprocal loyalty and likeability when surrounded by affirmation, accommodation, and affection. Consequently, their competing powers balance and cooperate to form compatibly successful relationships under management of relationship experts (aka women).
“With those items noted, I thank you and appreciate your blog. Though I disagree with the above items, it does not change my appreciation for your hard work, clever writing style, attention to detail and the ideas you convey. Thank you.”
And I thank you for the compliment of providing such attention to detail. Let the debate continue.